Why is it alright for us to film their POWs, but not them to film ours?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by problem_child
There's still the hornets nest of Guantanamo Bay, if the Iraqis had called their GI POWs illegal combatants (because accoding to the UN, this invasion is legally dodjy) then what could the Americans say...?

The Geneva Convention doesn't get into issues of whether the UN or any other party thinks a war is legally ok, or legally dodgy. The only issue is with recognized parties to a conflict - a perfect example is the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Regardless of legality of the invasion (and the whole notion of "legal" invasions is sort of dodgy in itself), lawful combatants of recognized parties to a conflict are entitled to the protections of the convention.

"Unlawful combatants" has nothing to do with whether some organization sanctions a war, it has only to do with the conduct and nature of the combatants themselves.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Master Zen
When those prisoners get back after the war, and say they suffered no violations of the Geneva Convention, I WILL LAUGH AT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS WHOLE RUCKUS.

Some of them won't say anything, they will be in bodybags.

[Alexander's Horse]

There's still the hornets nest of Guantanamo Bay

Yes and the US has really painted themselves into a corner on that.

There are US precedents for this kind of legal limbo - the way the leaders of the confederacy were treated I think - but I can't recall the details.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The Geneva Convention doesn't get into issues of whether the UN or any other party thinks a war is legally ok, or legally dodgy. The only issue is with recognized parties to a conflict - a perfect example is the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Regardless of legality of the invasion (and the whole notion of "legal" invasions is sort of dodgy in itself), lawful combatants of recognized parties to a conflict are entitled to the protections of the convention.

"Unlawful combatants" has nothing to do with whether some organization sanctions a war, it has only to do with the conduct and nature of the combatants themselves.

But the definition of "unlawful combatants" is EVEN MORE dodgy than that of a legal war, In fact, I hadn't even thought that term existed before the Afghan war. To me, the only unlawful combatants are kids and foreigners impressed into service. Everyone else counts, and those people at Guantanamo are legitimate prisoners of war even though the US claims otherwise.

[JCG]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Actually, recording and broadcasting POWs giving their name, rank and serial number has one beneficial effect.

It provides proof that that person is captured, and a bit more difficult to "disappear" someone.

Alas getting that up and running would probably be difficult.

I know...still, it would be better if the visual information was only released to the Red Cross/International Organizations/U.S. government.

Keep exposure to the bare minimum: Just give out the names, ranks and serial numbers on a list, and put that on CNN together with a file photo if you wish.

Evidence? All I have seen so far is some brief images of iraqi soldiers being led away from this or that location.

Have any Iraqi POWs had a camera stuck in their face and been asked questions about who they were, why they were there, if they wanted to shoot Americans or Brits, etc? Any wounded POWs for that matter?

I realize I wasn't clear, sorry....such things have yet to be done to the Iraqi POWs, but U.S. public opinion hasn't liked the second POW tape either, even if nothing humiliating has been done to the helicopter POWs. The point is, they fear for their lives and possible off-screen fate.

Thus, we can imagine part of what the Iraqi street will feel when they see those images of their loved ones on screen being arrested, kneeling down or in a lineup, can't we?

Several (the pro-SH types maybe) will suppose that the U.S./CIA will simply make some them "disappear" after a bloody interrogation, and they'll live with that fear for a long while.

That's why I think these tapes aren't helping the civilans on either side.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

"Unlawful combatants" has nothing to do with whether some organization sanctions a war, it has only to do with the conduct and nature of the combatants themselves.

Do combatants have to represent a sovereign nation to be considered lawful?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Jack_www
You would never see American troops doing something like this to Iraq solders and taping it for all the world to see.

I'm sorry... but is the shooting of prisoners the outrageous part of all this, or is it the taping? Your post makes it seem that the shooting of POWs is OK provided that it's done discreetly

Normally I wouldn't ask this, but I've seen more than one post that reads the same way.

[Kirnwaffen]

I take these posts to mean that they denounce both actions.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
I take these posts to mean that they denounce both actions.

Filming is pretty harmless... I'd be worried about the shooting.

Iraq doesn't have CNN to pump out glossy propaganda 24/7. I imagine a bunch of scared-looking POWs is their version of propaganda ("Look at what we're fighting - they ain't so bad!" - or Iraqi words to that effect).

[Master Zen]

Just like filming a city being blown to bits is no less humiliating... would you all like to see that happen to your home towns on world-wide TV? There are many forms of humilliation, filming POWS is but one of them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
A spin-off from the BBC:

What is this supposed to mean? That the enemies left in Basra is not to be considered to be regular combatants? Or is it just talk to get some support, playing the Terrorist-card so to speak.

There is a small cadre of non-uniformed, armed Saddamite loyalists who are both intimidating the local population, firing at our British allies while using civilian shields, and apparently "motivating" the uniformed Iraqi regulars to fight. Members of that group are clearly unlawful combatants, but the uniformed Iraqi regulars and militia are lawful combatants, thus entitled to GC protection if and when captured.

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Do combatants have to represent a sovereign nation to be considered lawful?

No. Nationality per se is not an issue - for example, stateless persons can be lawful combatants under the GC.

Mercenaries may or may not be lawful combatants, but regular uniformed combatants of third nations generally are lawful combatants.

Examples from recent history: Congo, 1965, "Mad Mike" Hoare and his English, Aussie, Rhodesian, and South African mercenaries: Unlawful combatants, even though openly armed and more or less uniformed, they were not nationals of recognized parties, not integrated with the regular or irregular armed forces of a recognized party. Individually, they also didn't adhere to the laws and customs of war.

Grenada, 1983, Cuban Army combat engineer battalion: Lawful combatants. Uniformed, openly armed, and regular forces of a third party nation allied with (and under technical control of) recognized party.

The US military has numerous non-US citizens in uniform, and their nationality isn't relevant, as they are regular, uniformed members of the US military.

Al Qaeda and Taleban fighters in Afghanistan:

Most Taleban: Lawful combatants as a general rule - openly armed, uniformed, members of regular forces of recognized party.

al Qaeda: Most are not lawful combatants - not integrated with forces of any recognized party, not uniformed, often not bearing arms openly, and not part of an organized force subject to orders of a definite command structure. (This is important in two respects - the ability of the command structure to discipline it's forces and compel obedience can prevent violations of the laws of war, and the commanders can order the surrender or cessation of hostilities of the entire force, so each individual doesn't have to be hunted down.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Just like filming a city being blown to bits is no less humiliating... would you all like to see that happen to your home towns on world-wide TV? There are many forms of humilliation, filming POWS is but one of them.

And the only forms of humiliation relevant to this thread are those that happen to POW's by their captors.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


I'm sorry... but is the shooting of prisoners the outrageous part of all this, or is it the taping? Your post makes it seem that the shooting of POWs is OK provided that it's done discreetly

Normally I wouldn't ask this, but I've seen more than one post that reads the same way.

No i dont mean that executing POWs is alright if done in secret. That is not what I was trying to say.

[Jack_www]

If I had to chose who I would want to take me prisoner during this war I would have to say US hands down. Only God knows what Saddam's troops are doing to those POWs.

[Felch]

I never thought that filming POWs was much of an issue. It seems that interviewing them on camera is a bigger deal. If the Iraqis had simply shown footage of American POWs, and those POWs were being treated humanely, there wouldn't be any problem.

Kurt Vonnegut I think wrote about being filmed by a German camera crew after he was captured. It became a little scene in Slaughterhouse Five. But it wasn't considered a criminal act by him. And I'm pretty sure I've seen footage of other POWs in various historical documentaries. The important thing is usually that they aren't being forced to answer questions and they are being treated reasonably well.